The latest issue of the Australian Law Journal (Volume 86 Part 11) contains the following material:
Cutting the Gordian Knot or entangling it further? – David Birch and Alice Zheng
In Westport Insurance Corporation v Gordian Runoff Ltd (2011) 244 CLR 239, the High Court expanded the scope for judicial review of arbitration awards under the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW). In doing so, the High Court expressly overturned a number of decisions of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. This article argues that the High Court’s reasoning is based on a misrepresentation of the previous case law and discusses the possible implications of the High Court’s alternative construction. This article then considers the relevance of the High Court’s decision to judicial review under the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW). It contends that the 2010 legislation evinces an unambiguous preference for restricting judicial review of arbitration awards that should not be curtailed by the High Court’s decision in Gordian Runoff.
Nominee board members: A duty of confidentiality? – Laura Free
A lot of angry discussion often breaks out if members of an organisation consider that a committee member has broken faith by breaching confidentiality. This article shows that the issues involved are complex, especially where there are umbrella organisations with a head office and various sub-branches.
There is currently widespread disagreement regarding the principled basis on which a beneficiary may access trust information. Two main approaches have emerged: on one approach a beneficiary is entitled to access trust documents because it has a proprietary interest in those documents; the other approach holds that the court has a discretion to determine the nature and extent of a beneficiary’s right to access information in each particular case as part of its inherent jurisdiction to supervise the administration of trusts. Judges and commentators in each of the two camps have argued that their approach represents the correct (and only) way forward for the development of equitable doctrine. This article suggests that the differences between the two approaches are less substantial than has been previously thought, and that in effect, courts have always employed a discretionary approach. Following this reconciled approach, the overarching principle is that beneficiary access to trust information forms part of the court’s inherent jurisdiction to supervise the administration of trusts, while the nature of a beneficiary’s proprietary rights is a factor that may be relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion.
CURRENT ISSUES – Guest Editor: Justice Clyde Croft
- Federal Circuit Court of Australia
- Judicial mediation
- Women in the law
- Tradition and the law
- International arbitration
- Sentencing appeals in the Victorian Court of Appeal
CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY – Editor: Peter Butt
- Restraint of trade and restrictive covenants
- Establishing boundaries of land
- Tenancy in common preferred over joint tenancy
- Restrictive covenant or easement?
- Expectation satisfied by equitable charge over property
- Mortgagee able to evict licensee
- Indefeasibility confirmed
FAMILY LAW – Editor: Anthony Dickey QC
- Is there really a fourth step in property settlement proceedings?
- Does the Family Court’s accrued jurisdiction increase its available forms of relief?
OVERSEAS LAW – Editor: Ross Buckley
- Equity market structural reform: The national public interest equation requires greater consideration
RECENT CASES – Guest Editor: Justice Clyde Croft
- Disclaimer of leases
- Mutual trust and confidence in employment agreements
- Personal costs orders against solicitors
- Enforcing foreign arbitration awards
BOOK REVIEWS – Editor: Angelina Gomez
- Australian Property Law, Cases Materials and Analysis (2nd ed), by Samantha Hepburn
- Unfair Contract Terms in Australia, by Jeannie Paterson
For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 86 Pt 11 Contents.